Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 4

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. --Xdamr^talk 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian women cricketers to Category:India women cricketers

Nominator's rationale: The category is for members of the India team and not for women cricketers of Indian origin. In such cases, the convention is to use the team name and not the country/race adjective. -SpacemanSpiff 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All subcategories of Category:Women cricketers use the adjective. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Oppose Using men's cricket as the convention, Category:India Test cricketers, Category:India ODI cricketers and Category:India Twenty20 International cricketers covers the members of the India team, while Category:Indian cricketers covers internationals and domestic players. Using this convention for the women's game seems to make sense too, so keep it as Category:Indian women cricketers. Harrias (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - If this category contains only women who have played for the
  Jay 00:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn. It was being used only for
  India national women's cricket team until yesterday -- the reason for my rename proposal, I've now split those to the other two categories (third pending), and understand the rationale, so I'll withdraw now. -SpacemanSpiff 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Consensus is to do a rename. The issue of 'in' vs. 'of' is not resolved. To resolve that issue I suggest a rename nomination of the parent's subcategories to one form or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anglican dioceses in Canada to Category:Anglican Church of Canada dioceses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The ACC is not the only Anglican church in Canada. It is the largest and oldest, yes, but there are plently of disenting splinter groups. This is based on a similar proposal I made about Irish diocses in May. see that debate. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada for clarity - better wording and matches other similar categories (apart from Category:Church of Ireland dioceses, which should also be renamed in my opinion). Incidentally, the article for the Anglican Church of Canada begins "The Anglican Church of Canada is the sole Canadian representative of the Anglican Communion." Is it wrong? Surely if a church is not a member of the Anglican Communion then it is not technically an Anglican church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No Necrothesp-- many Anglican bodies are not members of the "Anglican Communion" read
  Talk 09:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nominator, like Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- I guess that even if there are dissenting Anglican churches in Canada, the dioceses all belong to Anglican Church of Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta. All the dioceses articles all belong to Anglican Church of Canada.

As the

Talk 05:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. The splinter groups do not appear to be organised on a diocese basis and the use of "Anglican dioceses in" is consistent with other countries. If there is a rename it should be to Category:Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada as per Necrothesp. Cjc13 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest merging: Category:Wii-only games to Category:Wii games, Category:Xbox 360-only games to Category:Xbox 360 games, and Category:PlayStation 3-only games to Category:PlayStation 3 games.
• Nominator's Rationale - The separate list for Wii-only games is largely redundant. If a game is only on the Wii, it will only have that console category to begin with. It also makes it an unnecessary extra (albeit minor) hassle if later the game is ported to another console. The category serves no real purpose that Wii games cateogry could not handle.陣内_Jinnai 17:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I also point out the equivalent categories for the other two platforms,
  Miremare 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If that's the case, i will nominate those as well. We don't have exclusive SNES games, DS games, etc.陣内_Jinnai 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the other two to this nomination as the CfD notices on their pages didn't point to any discussion, and it would probably be best to keep it all in one place.
      Miremare 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Holy jesus no, don't delete the 360-only and PS3-only categories. The other ones are largely redundant as Jinnai aptly observed, but the 360/PS3-only categories are actually informative and useful pages on wikipedia for people looking to see what the exclusive games are on each platform, and I think Wikipedia should aim to provide useful knowledge and information. Merging those two categories would do wikipedia users a disservice and deny them information that is useful. If you like, Miremare, I can help you fix the problem of them not getting added to their parent category as well, but please don't delete these very useful categories. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not here to promote advertising. Why should we make them only for those systems, but not DS? PSP? SNES? Genisis? It's systemstic bias and only supports commerical marketing and advertising.
        • What does it matter if the game is exclusive? The person can find that out by reading the article or looking at the platform categories.
        • Bottom line: it's redundant, ie the info is easily found out by someone reading an article, its biased to only certain systems, its only reason for existence is marketing purposes and fanboy-ism.陣内_Jinnai 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clicketyclick, we tried that a while back... someone got their bot to make sure that all the pages in the "only" categories were added to the parent category if they weren't already. The problem is you have to keep doing it, and some people will revert it as they see the extra categorisation as being redundant, etc. (there is a guideline somewhere that says they should also be in the parent category, though I forget what it's called). However, we do have
          Miremare 12:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Objection 1: Lists of platform-specific games exist already. There is a
  list of Negro League baseball players despite there also existing Category:African American baseball players and Category:Negro league baseball players
  . At least in our case, the category is more specific than the list, though that's not required.
• Objection 2: It's advertising. Yes, these categories provide relevant information to people who, perhaps, are trying to make an informed purchase of a product. That is the same motivation many have for reading articles about the games themselves. The category is not advertising any more so than the pages for the games contained within it are.
• Objection 3: It's biased. Jinnai's reasoning for putting up the Wii-only Games Category for deletion was that it was "largely redundant" since it nearly entirely overlapped with Wii Games Category. This is why a DS-only Games Category does not exist -- if a game is on the system, it's almost always exclusive. This problem is not present with the PS3 and 360 lists since there are many multiplatform games on each system. It's actually rare for a game to be exclusive on these systems.
• Objection 4: You can find out the info by reading the article. That's not a reason to get rid of a category. If it were, no categories would exist, because an article should make clear all the features upon which it is categorised. After all, if you read Obama's article, you should know before looking at the categories that he is an African American politician and that he's the President of the USA.

All of your reasons are flawed.

Reason 1 - those aren't video game platforms. Just because something is done one way somewhere else on Wikiedpia, doesn't mean it must be done that way here; video games and sports are not the same thing last i checked.

Reason 2 - The only purpose for making them seperate is to advertise that fact - nothing more. The average reader doesn't need to know that the game is exclusive. What's more they could easily tell if it was exclusive simply by looking at the categories and seeing one or more than one.

Reason 3 - That is still a form of bias. We don't do that for DS games dispite the DS having unique gaming mechanics to it. Even if we did though, that's not enough justification as it is still a form of bias.

Reason 4 - And the split is not needed. If we go with that logic, we, need to split every single video game system like that, starting now. No excuses like "well it doesn't have many titles that are exclusive" or "the mechanics make the sytem more notable for that". That is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors trying to cover the real crux: bias toward a specific console generation, the current one, and more specifically one systme: the Wii.

Reason 5 - There has been massive and continual removal from the main categories. It was tried in the past to keep them linked with the parent cateogires. One such attempt is exactly what made me bring this up, where a user removed the parent category for the exclusivity one only. As long as the exclusivity category exists, this will never end and given its only purpose is advertising the fact that "hey look at me, i'm exclusive" there is no reason for it; there is absolutely no other reason for its existence.陣内_Jinnai 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicketyclick, I don't feel obliged to maintain the categories and haven't attempted to do so for a long time for Jinnai's reason #5 above - it's a continuous battle against inclusion in the more important category, which is indisputably the parent category. For your answer on

Regarding the second point, we shouldn't include categories simply to help people decide on what system to buy. However, I don't think anyone would base the purchase of an Xbox 360 on what games aren't on other systems, so much as what games are on the Xbox 360. The category they should be checking is Category: Xbox 360 games, which shouldn't be missing entries to a subcategory. But even if they were basing their purchase on that, the aforementioned List of Xbox 360 games gives the same information in a far easier to maintain (and therefore more reliable) way.

The "advertising" thing stems from the fact that console manufacturers and fanboys like to make a big deal about exclusives, because it makes their console best. Other than to promote the consoles, why would we follow their lead? What we should be saying is "this game is available on this console", not "this game isn't available on other consoles".

• Oppose the general remove of the -only categories.

  First, for those not into video games, until the last "generation" (PlayStation 2, GameCube, and original Xbox), games would nearly always be published exclusively on one console; the idea of releasing a game on multiple consoles was very rare. Only until this last generation, with the transition to disk-based media (cheaper to produce), PC-based development kits (easier to code between), and the marketing aspirations of sports and movie tie-in games did the idea of cross-platform releases really take off. It's certainly a significant part of the market now, but key here is that it is relatively recent to have multiple platforms for a single game. The point is here is that we likely would never have categories "Nintendo 64-only games" because without any exceptions I'm aware of, all "Nintendo 64" games would be "Nintendo 64-only" games - they are the same set. Obviously not the case with the above categories in question. So it is the fact that it is a recent issue is why it only applies to a subset of the consoles, and not to every gaming platform.

  Second, the information is not strictly marketing, promotional, or "buyers-guide" information we'd prohibit by

  WP:NOT

  . There is value in knowing games that are exclusive to consoles - for example, as an academic measure, it is worthwhile to consider how many exclusive titles there are relative to how many games on a system, total, indicating how well the console attracts 3rd party developers to only develop for that system. They can be used to discover console loyalties simply by observation of who does what, something that we can't say ourselves due to OR. They *could* be used as a buyer's guide, but there's more to it.

  Third, give the need for this qualification, it would be easily doable without the "-only" categories if we had category intersections: find all Wii games that are not PS3 or 360 games, for example. There are intersection tools out there, but these are not easily found to the causal user of WP. Until we do get easy category intersections in place, the "-only" categories serve as the necessary replacement for those.

  Fourth, the "-only" categories pretty much are a prime example of the

  WP:DUPCAT

  philosophy. A game can be released on a console, and it can also be exclusively released on the console. The issue of a recent user having gone through and removing the games from this cat (which still needs to be corrected) was done without consulting the project, which has used the DUPCAT advice for this for a long time.

  Now, I'm not against a better name or something for the "-only" categories (such as "Wii-exclusive games"), but removing the "only" categories is not helpful in the long run. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, with all due respect to your position, the -only categories are not what you explain. First and foremost, they only exist for the lastest gen console systems, not older ones where games were still exclusive at times and others weren't. This promotes

good faith to. Finally if a game is later released on a new console, the -only categorization is not always updated. As for being a navigation tool, knowing what games are exclusive is trivial information and unnessary in most cases. Knowing what system(s) the game is on is all that is generally needed for non-gamers and gamers alike.陣内_Jinnai 19:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because they don't exist for older systems doesn't mean there's bias, because those categories *could* be created. I would argue there probably need DS and PSP-only game categories too to reduce the bias. It's systematic, but fixable. Yes, IPs may remove the parent category all the time, unaware of our discussions on the reason to keep them, but that's not a reason to remove them, we just have to inform the IPs. Updating is just a matter of doing some category checks (eg, that category intersection stuff can be used to ID "-only" games that are no longer "-only" games), so updating isn't an issue. The key point though is that it is not exactly which games are exclusive to a console, but what the relative size and proportion of games released are exclusive, and that's data that more meta than just what a gamer may need - it's academic in nature and can be used to understand developer support for the various consoles. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Not sure I can agree with you on the academic study thing... not that I don't think the subject would be studied, but I don't see that the categories could be of much, or any, use given the lists, which present the same information in a far more reliable way. Not to mention that I'd advise against anyone taking any Wikpedia category that seriously anyway. But the main point, other than the promotional angle (which I still believe is the case for the reasons I stated above), is that exclusivity isn't a defining characteristic in a video game.

Miremare 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, to marketers (at least PS3 and 360) that is a defining term; I know early 360 games were stamped with "Only for Xbox 360" (and in one notable game, Gears of War, when the PC version was announced well after that , there was much gnashing of teeth) and still relatively recent releases have it (Lost Odyssey); and PS3 and PSP (and even some PS2 games! see Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier's box art) games definitely continue to be branded with it. Now, I'm not saying we cave to Sony/Microsoft's marketing efforts, but I do think that games being marked this way imply that there is a qualifying measure to it. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that to the marketers it's a very important term. Some original Xbox games also came marked with a "only on Xbox" logo which, if I remember correctly, signified that it was an Xbox exclusive... for at least six months after release. Many of which wouldn't now qualify for an Xbox "only" category if there were one. It's important enough to them that they'll pretty much semi-lie about it because it sells consoles - I can't imagine that the "only on Xbox" mark was aimed at those who already owned an Xbox. But that exclusivity is important to people trying to sell us stuff would seem to me to be a reason not to include a category for it unless it's important in some other way. But other than as a tool for "my console's better than your console"-type arguments, which is exactly what the marketers intend, what is there? Exclusivity has no bearing on the game at all.

Miremare 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And I agree that exclusivity rarely is an affect on a game (Gears of War is a rare case since that impacted its reception when it became non-exclusive). But it is a factor of the console's game library as I've tried to explain. Unfortunately, it's not a category that can be applied to the console-side, it has to be done at the game side. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per my reasons already stated and per Masem's excellently argued statements. (Hi, Masem!)

  Jinnai, there's seems to be a misunderstanding based on your responses to Reasons 3 and 4. This is why I am saying there is no bias: the other platforms (DS, N64, etc.) cannot have their own Exclusive Games Category per the

  WP:OVERCAT

  guidelines, specifically #10 about Mostly Overlapping Categories (which is linked.) This guideline, however, does not rule out PS3 and 360 Exclusive Games Categories for the simple reason that they aren't mostly overlapping categories. There is no bias because we are merely applying the Overcategorisation Guidelines in an even-handed, objective manner.

  As for Reason 1, I used that example specifically because it is the example used in the Categorisation Guidelines. That category is a guideline for how/when to make categories.

  Miremare, the "non-defining or trivial characteristic" guideline is very specifically worded as to only pertain to human subjects. I'm afraid to start applying these guidelines to things they weren't intended to guide.

  Just because these companies think it's a big deal to put this info in their ads doesn't mean we are justified to remove this info from wikipedia. And actually, the very fact that these companies think exclusivity so important to advertise (as you both correctly pointed out) goes to demonstrate how important, non-trivial, and notable this feature actually is with games. It's notable enough to meet inclusion criteria for wikipedia and be a common/natural way that people categorise games. That we're having difficulties keeping the lists up to date is a separate issue. I don't think it's appropriate to just delete pages that have this trouble and solve it in this manner. That seems like a bad solution -- and precedent -- to me. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given pertain to people, but there is nothing to suggest it doesn't apply to all categories. "Just because these companies think it's a big deal to put this info in their ads doesn't mean we are justified to remove this info from wikipedia" - the point is, how are we justified to include entire categories devoted to what these companies think is a big deal to put in their ads?

Miremare 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ditto Miremare.
Also Clicketyclick, your assement would fail on the DS exactly for the same reasons claimed why you claim the Wii is so unique; exclusive titles that can only be played on it because of the hardware interface. That alone shows that there is bias for the new systems. Furthermore these items only are created for the sake of marketing and fanboyism in a devisive manner that tries to say "my console is better than your console because it has game X". It does not serve any other purpose. No one has given any sound reason - Masem's reason is extemely far-fetched.陣内_Jinnai 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Masem and the fact that if those in this discussion have their way, these categories will be the only place to find data on console exclusivity. –xeno^talk 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That most of the people at

Miremare 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, if it shouldn't be included in lists, why should it be exempt in categorizations.陣内_Jinnai 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: MERGE per nom. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American radio presenters to Category:American radio personalities

Nominator's rationale: Merge - "radio presenter" is not a term in common usage in the US. American sources do not appear to use the term "radio presenter" when referring to an American radio personality. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Category:American radio hosts. "Radio host" is a term frequently used in US media sources as a google search will confirm. It is more specific than the umbrella term "radio personality" and encompasses the existing subcategories under the "Radio presenter" category.--JayJasper (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't believe that we call Categoory:American radio reporters and correspondents hosts. We also don't have presenters, So Merge per nom. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:American radio program hosts? Even more specific, and it encompasses DJs, talk show hosts and hosts of radio "magazine" programs.--JayJasper (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Merge to match title of parent article radio personality. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Host" is a sub-category of radio personality, and a rather sizable one when one considers it encompasses talk radio hosts, DJs, news magazine hosts, and others who host general interest and entertainment programs like "Click & Clack", Garrison Keilor, etc. Also, such a subcategory would be consistent with nationality-specific subcategorizations such as Category:British radio presenters, Category:Colombian radio presenters, Category:Italian radio presenters, Category:New Zealand radio presenters, Category:Welsh radio presenters.Category:American radio hosts would essentially be the same category as these, except with the word "host" in place of "presenter" in light of the fact that it is the commonly used term in the United States. To reiterate, rename Category:American radio hosts.--JayJasper (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Category:American radio journalists, a subcategory in the category being discussed, are not the same as presenters in other countries . Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that radio journalists should be removed as a subcategory in the category under discussion, but maintain that "Radio hosts" still encompasses a sizable subcategory (DJs, news magazine hosts, etc.) and thus should be renamed as such.--JayJasper (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge both into Category:Kyle, Ayrshire. Mind you, all this category will contain is Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cumnock and Kyle, so it may well be nominated again for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Environment of Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories are both small and there appears to be no navigational need for them. If retained they need to be renamed as Kyle is ambiguous. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- If kept, rename to Category:Kyle, Ayrshire, etc. However, the two categories seem to do nothing but refer to each other. Can either be populated? Kyle is a disambiguation page, but Kyle, Ayrshire appears to be the intended main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment –
  talk) 18:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete after a bit of adjustment. The former Kyle and Carrick local govt unit was reconstituted to the less attractively named South Ayrshire over a decade ago. Following suit, Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cumnock and Kyle could be placed directly into Category:Environment of South Ayrshire removing any role for Category:Environment of Kyle and Category:Kyle as that removes their sole entry. AllyD (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Kyle to Category:Kyle, Ayrshire and upmerge the articles in Category:Environment of Kyle there. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Debresser. This appears satsifactorily to deal with my comment above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vernacular geography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Far too open ended category. Based on the current contents, absolutely any geographic region or regions could be placed in there. MRSC (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vernacular geography is the subject of academic study. While care must be taken, it is an appropriate categorisation for such subjects as Provinces of Sweden and Districts of Norway; geographical designations universally used in those countries but which do not fit in any existing category (they are not administrative nor judicial divisions, for example).

Howard Alexander (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Does not seem a sensible categorization. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vernacular geography is so broadly defined that there is no reasonable objective inclusion criteria. I could see how Las Vegas should be in there, but that's a dab page! I don't agree with the position that we need this category since the current members do not fit in any existing categories. Clearly each of the included articles have other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is an increasing need to represent imprecise, vernacular regions within the resources used by geographic information systems for local searches and mapping, particularly as non-specialist users of such systems are more likely to use vernacular geography. A number of articles about UK cities, e.g. Salford, Wakefield, Sunderland, are about vernacular places that are not officially recognised administrative areas but are names by which ordinary people refer to their concept of a 'place'. Many Wikipedia users are also non specialists in the niceties of geographic nomenclature. Inclusion criterion is a non-officially recognised geographical area.--Harkey (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The popular concept of geography, especially in urban areas often rarely coincides with administrative boundaries. Owain (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Organizations opposed to human trafficking. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-trafficking organizations to Category:Anti-human-trafficking organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify and correspond with parent Category:Human trafficking. It is possible to be opposed to (illegal) trafficking of other things (drugs, most obviously). [note: second hyphen in proposed name is to keep the adjectival phrase together so that this does not mean "trafficking organizations" that are "anti-human".] Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Organizations opposed to human trafficking to match the title of the parent category, more clearly describe the purpose and avoid the hyphen issue. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or that's fine with me too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alansohn or better still Rename to Category:Organizations opposed to people trafficking . This avoid a horrid treble compound noun. It also makes it clear that it is about people trafficing, not drug trafficing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard phrase that is used in secondary sources/the academic literature is "human trafficking", not "people trafficking". (My own google test revealed 2.5 million for "human trafficking" and only 87,000 for "people trafficking".) Plus the parent category is Category:Human trafficking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Organizations opposed to human trafficking as the best name to describe the contents of the category and not invent something only WP would think up. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swiss Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 to Category:Swiss Federal Constitution (1999)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest simplifying name. The main article is at Swiss Federal Constitution, but as there are two other Swiss federal constitutions (1848 and 1874), some sort of disambiguation is needed. But a simple year in brackets should suffice; there is no need for the exact date to serve as a disambiguator in the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to disambiguate as minimally as needed. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:China exclusive video games to Category:China-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - If one looks at emulation sites (that have ROMS) very carefully, one could find games that were intended for a Chinese audience only. GVnayR (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin. I think these Foo-exclusive video games noms can be closed with the simple grammar correction. Suggest bringing back to CFD should someone come up with an alternative naming convention. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Europe exclusive video games to Category:Europe-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - there are games that were only released in Europe. GVnayR (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North America exclusive video games to Category:North America-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the decision to rename the category. I originally created the category as Category:America exclusive video games a year ago and now it's going through its second renaming process (which is good in certain ways). GVnayR (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkey exclusive video games to Category:Turkey-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region exclusive video games to Category:Region-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Each region has video games that were only released in a certain section. While a PlayStation 3 can play games from any region, this category allows people track of older games that can only be played in a certain region. GVnayR (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japan exclusive video games to Category:Japan-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Grammar —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "grammar" is your only objection to all these, could you suggest better titles for the categories?

Video games released exclusively in Japan??? --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, they actually exist. I first heard about them in an old Nintendo Power magazine. Years later when I started to play emulator games, I found a whole lot of games that were only released in Japan (given away by the J in brackets on a ROM file). There are at least hundreds of not thousands of games for all the console systems, personal computers, and the video arcade that only get a Japanese release. GVnayR (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was my suggestion for a possible better name. Not sure if it is or not, but I was just throwing it out there. :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I am suggesting better titles for these categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of hard to come up with one. Category:Video games released exclusively in Japan is the best I can come up. Apply that to the other regions as well. However, it doesn't work for stuff like religion. I think the idea with the similar names is to keep the category naming schemes as consistent as possible.陣内_Jinnai 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Copy Control albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The security system embedded in the hardcopies of a CD are not a defining feature of an album that is produced. To me this seems more silly that categorizing albums by disc format, which itself is dubious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not a defining characteristic of the album itself. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE that this category is automatically added to articles when the Copy Control template is added to the page. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted per author request.

talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Interstate 355 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, no hope of expansion. I don't think any other 3 digit interstate even has a category, as 3-digits are usually very short. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this... not sure what else I had in mind when I made it. —Rob (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.